2 ms·

But Dan Luu isn't obviously motivated by a desire to antagonize the Apple employee, and neither is he socially or morally obligated in the slightest to explain

But Dan Luu isn't obviously motivated by a desire to antagonize the Apple employee, and neither is he socially or morally obligated in the slightest to explain his consumer intentions during a purchase at the Apple store. And was the encounter really antagonistic? Dan Luu is the one who left looking stupid.

entropyie 5y ago
Consider that the shop is unlikely to have the laptops stored or annotated by box size. Dan was asking the employee to expend considerable additional effort to find the smallest laptop box when he potentially knew the model number, or least had a reason that would justify the extra work. I would have just said "I'm really tight on carry-on space", not to avoid looking stupid, but to assure the employee I wasn't breaking their balls for no reason.
- genewitch 5y ago
  So you'd lie to the employee? He touches on this later in the article after comparing thoughts to another person (who is block quoted) who seems to wonder the same things as a lot of commenters here...
  - entropyie 5y ago
    I would have synthesised a brief approximation of the real reason. Transport being one real possibility. The point is that this is a two way transaction with a real person, who has their own hidden state, goals and limits that are not always apparent to a consumer. E.g. company policy on deducing what the customer really needs. How was the employee to know Dan was the one person who actually knew what they needed, out of 100 over confident buffoon's that came to the shop that week. This is why I don't hassle the support person fixing my internet when they run through support script. I don't say "skip this, I have an honours degree blah blah", cause they have enough constraints to deal with as is... And once in a 100 times, I will learn something I didn't know...
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      IMO, falsehoods do not constitute dishonesty anymore than truths constitute honesty. Honesty is about the sharing of clarity, and sometimes teachers Lie To Children¹ and other times people confuse or obscure with facts. What matters is a sensitive understanding of what clarity means to others. Anyways, if you tell a store person "oh, I'm getting this for my husband" when it's a gift for yourself, that's more honesty than dishonesty, because to the store person, "clarity" with a customer is very goal oriented. Dan Luu wasn't trying to screw with the store person, and in the end they all got what they wanted, even if Dan Luu walked away "looking stupid". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
verve_rat 5y ago
I disagree. He might not be morally obligated, but his is certainly socially obligated. Customers ask for the wrong thing all the time. A problem solver, as any good retail sales person should be, will ask questions to help the customer understand their own needs and the available solutions. That story just shows that Dan Luu doesn't understand the social process that happens in the retail environment. That he doesn't care if he looks stupid is besides the point here. He looked stupid to the retail worker not because he didn't explain his underlying reasons for wanting a small box. He looked stupid because he didn't understand the retail sales process. That is to say, he was stupid, about that one thing, and that is why he looked stupid.

entropyie 5y ago

Consider that the shop is unlikely to have the laptops stored or annotated by box size. Dan was asking the employee to expend considerable additional effort to find the smallest laptop box when he potentially knew the model number, or least had a reason that would justify the extra work. I would have just said "I'm really tight on carry-on space", not to avoid looking stupid, but to assure the employee I wasn't breaking their balls for no reason.

genewitch 5y ago
So you'd lie to the employee? He touches on this later in the article after comparing thoughts to another person (who is block quoted) who seems to wonder the same things as a lot of commenters here...
- entropyie 5y ago
  I would have synthesised a brief approximation of the real reason. Transport being one real possibility. The point is that this is a two way transaction with a real person, who has their own hidden state, goals and limits that are not always apparent to a consumer. E.g. company policy on deducing what the customer really needs. How was the employee to know Dan was the one person who actually knew what they needed, out of 100 over confident buffoon's that came to the shop that week. This is why I don't hassle the support person fixing my internet when they run through support script. I don't say "skip this, I have an honours degree blah blah", cause they have enough constraints to deal with as is... And once in a 100 times, I will learn something I didn't know...
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    IMO, falsehoods do not constitute dishonesty anymore than truths constitute honesty. Honesty is about the sharing of clarity, and sometimes teachers Lie To Children¹ and other times people confuse or obscure with facts. What matters is a sensitive understanding of what clarity means to others. Anyways, if you tell a store person "oh, I'm getting this for my husband" when it's a gift for yourself, that's more honesty than dishonesty, because to the store person, "clarity" with a customer is very goal oriented. Dan Luu wasn't trying to screw with the store person, and in the end they all got what they wanted, even if Dan Luu walked away "looking stupid". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

verve_rat 5y ago

I disagree. He might not be morally obligated, but his is certainly socially obligated. Customers ask for the wrong thing all the time. A problem solver, as any good retail sales person should be, will ask questions to help the customer understand their own needs and the available solutions. That story just shows that Dan Luu doesn't understand the social process that happens in the retail environment. That he doesn't care if he looks stupid is besides the point here. He looked stupid to the retail worker not because he didn't explain his underlying reasons for wanting a small box. He looked stupid because he didn't understand the retail sales process. That is to say, he was stupid, about that one thing, and that is why he looked stupid.